JUDGMENT Jagmohan Lal, J. - In both these civil revisions, the only point involved is whether the Munsif Hawaii, Lucknow, to whom the suits had been transferred by the District judge had jurisdiction to try those suits or not. The relevant facts were that the plaintiff-opposite party filed these two suits for ejectment and arrears of rent originally in the court of Munsif. Hawaii alleging that the property in suit was situate in Alamnagar which was within the jurisdiction of Munsif Hawaii. On behalf of the defendant, an objection about the jurisdiction was raised on the ground that Alamnagar had since been included within ,the municipal limits of Lucknow and as such the territorial jurisdiction of Munsif Hawaii did not extend to that locality. In view of this objection of the defendant, the plaintiff prayed that the plaints may be returned to him which were returned accordingly. 2. After that, the plaintiff filed both these suits in the court of the District Judge, Lucknow, as he was not sure whether this locality which had since come under municipal limits was within the territorial jurisdiction of Munsif South or Munsif North, Lucknow. The District Judge entertained both these suits and then transferred them to the court of Munsif Hawaii for decision. The defendant again took the plea of jurisdiction. This time it was alleged by him that the District judge had no jurisdiction to entertain these suits in view of Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such the Munsif Hawaii to whom these suits were transferred by the District judge had also no jurisdiction to try ahem. 3. This plea of jurisdiction was overruled by the learned Munsif Hawaii who relied on the Full Bench ruling of this Court in Nidhi Lal v. Mazahar Husain, VII I.L.R. 230' in which it was held that Section 15, Code of Civil Procedure, is meant for the protection of the Courts and that a suit or is obliged to bring his suit in the courts of lowest grade competent to try it, the object of the Legislature being that the courts of higher grade should not be overcrowded with suits which can be tried by courts of lower grade. But if it court of higher grade wishes to retain the suit in its court, it may do so and it is not bound to refuse to entertain it. But if it court of higher grade wishes to retain the suit in its court, it may do so and it is not bound to refuse to entertain it. It was further observed that Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a provision entirely of procedure as distinct from jurisdiction and its effect on Section 19 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act is that the jurisdiction of the District Judge and subordinate judge extends to all original suits cognizable by the civil court, subject in its exercise to a certain procedure, namely, that suits be instituted in the court of lowest grade competent to try them. This ruling was followed in several subsequent cases also. In Ratan Sen v. Suraj Bhan, A.I.R. 1944 Allahabad 1 it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the rule in Section 15 that Bhan it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the rule in Section 15 that every suit should be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it is intended for the protection of the courts of higher grade and does not affect their jurisdiction. The same view was reiterated in L. Bishambhar Dayal v. Lala Girdhari La1 1952 A.W.R. 645. in which it was held that Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains merely a procedural provision and its object is not to oust the jurisdiction of a court of higher grade to try and dispose of a suit of smaller valuation. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not cite any authority to the contrary. In the present cases, the District Judge entertained these suits because it was felt that there was some uncertainty regarding the territorial jurisdiction over this locality as between the Munsif South and the Munsif North. Perhaps, an amendment in the schedule to Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act would also be necessary to remove this uncertainty. If under these circumstances the District judge entertained these suits and then transferred them to the court of Munsif Hawaii, it cannot be said that the District judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits or that the Munsif Hawaii had no jurisdiction to try them. The plea of jurisdiction was rightly rejected by the trial court and these revisions have no force. The plea of jurisdiction was rightly rejected by the trial court and these revisions have no force. So, both these revisions are dismissed with costs to the opposite party.